Jasper County Democrat, Volume 12, Number 84, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 February 1910 — A JOKE ON THE SENATE. [ARTICLE]

A JOKE ON THE SENATE.

Thought They Were Voting On Passage of Accounting Bill When It Was Only the Amendments (?) “Recently the Republican offered some criticism against the Indiana accounting law under which 100 socalled expert accountants are now working in the state of Indiana, charging $lO per day and traveling expenses to the taxpayers and going into any community where they want to work and spending as much time as they choose'and charging the expense up to the unwilling taxpayers at the unreasonable rate of >lO per day. In the '"same article the Republican said that Senator Halleca had voted against the bill, that the bill was a democratic measure and that Governor Marshall had made it possible for these leeches to parade about the state and prey upon the unwilling taxpayers. The Jasper County Democrat came out with the statement that it was not a democratic but a republican law, that every democrat in the senate had voted against it and every republican had voted for It, and that Senator Halleck of this district had voted for the present measure. “If Mr. Babcock now wishes to be either honest or fair to his readers and to Senator Halleck he will acknowledge that he is entirely in error in so stating. And if he will again consult the Senate Journal he will notice that on page 535 an amendment was offered by Senator Mattingly (republican) that entirely reconstructed the original bill, provided that the new accounting system be supervised from the office of the secretary of state, with the assistance of the governor and treasurer of state who are to serve, without extra compensation, and that the amendment provided for the reduction of the number of experts from 100 to 10 and their pay from $lO to $6 per day. He will observe if he goes further that this amendment reducing the cost of operation* and the number of employes and their salaried was voted upon as reported on pages 544 and 545 and that every republican member of the senate, including the author of the original bill, voted In favor of the amendment and against the high salaries. He will see that instead of the vote there reported being a final vjote it was a vote on the amehdment and Chat Senator Halleck supported the amendment In’the interest of economy and against the ridiculously expensive bill, which

is the most inexcusable blunder ever saddled on the taxpayers of Indiana.’’—Republican. The Senate Journal at page 12 of index says of the bill for the new accounting law, which was known and designated as Senate Bill No. 2, Introduced in the senate by Senator Bland, a (republican: ‘‘No. 2. Introduced Jan. 12. ‘A Bill for An Act Concerning Public Accounting and Reporting and Supervision Thereof, and Providing Penalties.’ Author, Bland.” ‘‘Read first time Jan. 12 and referred to Committee on County and Township Business. Jan. 27 reported favorably and concurred in. “Feb. 2, ordered engrossed. “Feb. 2, engrossed. “Feb. 10, PASSED. Ayes 27; noes 22 “Feb. 11, refenred to House. “March 4, signed by Governor.” It will be clearly seen from the above that the bill was a republican Senate Bill, and did not originate in the democratic House. The bill as originally introduced, was amended in the senate to some extent on Feb. 10, on motion of Senator Mattingly, republican, who was the attorney for the County Officers’ Association, by striking out a line here and adding one there (just the precise language of the original bill we do not know, as same does not appear in full in the Journal calendar, nor do any bills as introduced) and Senator Bland, the bill’s author, concurred in the amendments, at 2 p. m., of Feb. 10. (See pages 243-4-5), and the bill was put on its passage, the Journal reading: “The question being upon the PASSAGE of the bill as amended. The roll was called. Those voting in the affirmative (giving names, all republicans, including Senator Halleck) 27; negative (giving names, all democrats) 22. SO THE BILL PASSED. “The secretary was ordered to inform the House of the PASSAGE of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 2, and transmit same to that body.” The capitals above are ours to give emphasis to the fact that the Senate was laboring under the impression that the vote was on the passage of the bill and not simply on the amendments, as stated by the Republican. The bill was amended to some extent in the House, and on Feb. 20, by a vote of 76 to 8, was passed. The voting strength of the House was 59 democrats to 39 republicans, (as near as we are able to discover their political complexion from the Journal.) Sicks, democrat, being one of the eight to vote against it. Therefore there must have been—if every democrat was in his place and voted, which was evidently not the case as not a full vote was cast—lß of the 39 republicans of the House voted for the bill there on its final passage in the House

The bill then came back to the Senate to concur in the House amendments, and on Feb. 27, by a vote of 38 to 6, the Senate concurred in the amendments of the House, Senator Halleck being one of the sdx voting against concurring. The voting strength of the Senate being 23 democrats to 27 republicans, if every democrat voted to concur in the house amendments, there must have been 16 republicans who also voted to concur. As the Journal shows but 44 votes cast (6 short) in the vote to concur, and only 6 votes were cast against concurrence, the vote might have been 21 republicans and 17 democrats. (This, we did not Investigate.) Now, in view of these facts, as shown by the official records of the Assembly, how can The Republican still persist in claiming that it is a democratic law? Also, in view of Senator Halleck's bills to have a circuit court judge in every county in the state at a cost of $3,500 per annum each, affecting, we believe, some 40 of the 92 counties and adding a total burden of $140,000 per year onto the taxpayers of the state, and his “township and county dredge” bill, which required every county and* township having a certain amount of wet lands to buy and operate a dredge, which would have added another burden of about $150,000 to $175,000 onto the taxpayers of Jasper as well as many other counties, and built up a huge political machine of the dredge employes, will the Republican be able to convince its readers that it was solely in the interests of economy that Senator Halleck voted against concurring in the House amendments to this accounting bill? And, as the Journal clearly shows that the vote of Feb. 10 was on the PASSAGE of the bill, will the Republican now try to explain Senator Halleck's vote by stating that he thought he was voting on the amendments instead of on the passage of the bill? Century Rubber Boots are reliable. Pride $4.50, and every pair guaranteed. Fendig's Exclusive Bhqe Store.